0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

There's no chance in he!! that some local "militia" group can fight off even the local police. So the idea that people will use guns to overthrow the government they don't like is never going to happen.

Guns aside, is a government that powerful compared to the populace, is that a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing?


"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- T. Jefferson. He wrote some document, but he owned slaves too.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Sort of. They are federally banned for sale/resale. You can still own them, but are encouraged to destroy them. I have a set; the good ones with lead in the tips.

So you have the daily double: you can cause both acute and chronic deaths with yours.

[St. Clown]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Guns aside, is a government that powerful compared to the populace, is that a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing?


"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- T. Jefferson. He wrote some document, but he owned slaves too.

And when he wrote it, and by the time he died, all firearms were single shot with a 12- to 30-second reload process. And then they had cannons. That's it (perhaps grenades had just recently been invented). We can't know what they would say about the potential arsenals available today.

[Drew S.]

And when he wrote it, and by the time he died, all firearms were single shot with a 12- to 30-second reload process. And then they had cannons. That's it (perhaps grenades had just recently been invented). We can't know what they would say about the potential arsenals available today.

Are you talking what the government has or what people have?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

Are you talking what the government has or what people have?

He's talking about both. And they certainly do not equate nowadays. I can't have any grenades. Why? If I'm going to protect myself from the government I should be able to have whatever they have. Right?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

And when he wrote it, and by the time he died, all firearms were single shot with a 12- to 30-second reload process. And then they had cannons. That's it (perhaps grenades had just recently been invented). We can't know what they would say about the potential arsenals available today.

You didn't answer the first question:

Is a government that powerful compared to the populace, is that a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing?

[unofan]

You didn't answer the first question:

Is a government that powerful compared to the populace, is that a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing?

You haven't answered your own question, either.

[St. Clown]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

You didn't answer the first question:

Is a government that powerful compared to the populace, is that a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing?

Now that governments have nuclear weapons and bunker busters, it's a good thing. I don't want Johnny Overbite down the street to have a nuclear weapon, MOAB or Abrams M-1A, and there's no putting the genie back into the bottle.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

You haven't answered your own question, either.

I would like to see a far less militarized, weaponized civilian law enforcement organization. Not quite the question however.

The Constitution authors never envisioned a standing army hence Amendment 3.
We're so militarily powerful today, a despotic Government has access to the the resources to dominate the populace. That's not a good thing.

Not saying it will happen; however, the resources are there.

[unofan]

I would like to see a far less militarized, weaponized civilian law enforcement organization. Not quite the question however.

The Constitution authors never envisioned a standing army hence Amendment 3.
We're so militarily powerful today, a despotic Government has access to the the resources to dominate the populace. That's not a good thing.

Not saying it will happen; however, the resources are there.

So it sounds like you're saying it's a bad thing? Can't tell since you're not directly answering your own question, either.

[Drew S.]

I would like to see a far less militarized, weaponized civilian law enforcement organization. Not quite the question however.

The Constitution authors never envisioned a standing army hence Amendment 3.
We're so militarily powerful today, a despotic Government has access to the the resources to dominate the populace. That's not a good thing.

Not saying it will happen; however, the resources are there.

Strongly agree with your first paragraph. Would add that it seems like it is getting increasingly politicized which makes the situation worse.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

So it sounds like you're saying it's a bad thing? Can't tell since you're not directly answering your own question, either.

Did you miss the words "That's not a good thing."?

Let me help: not a good thing is a bad thing.

[rufus]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

You haven't answered your own question, either.

Just asking the questions.

I assume he's a big proponent of a strong US military. Probably hated how Clinton and Obama destroyed it, and excoriated them over it.

[rufus]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

I would like to see a far less militarized, weaponized civilian law enforcement organization. Not quite the question however.

The Constitution authors never envisioned a standing army hence Amendment 3.
We're so militarily powerful today, a despotic Government has access to the the resources to dominate the populace. That's not a good thing.

Not saying it will happen; however, the resources are there.

So when do we start cutting the military budget, and use those savings for the social safety net?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

I've said before I'd like to have a reshaped US Military, a military of last resort: Keep it home, in the shed, until there's no other choice, for when the talking just isn't working; however, at that point it gets released and it is predatory. When its mission is complete, back home in the shed.